From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-08 13:27:00
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> * Why is the new license better?
>> I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are
>> some answers as I understand them:
>> Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for reducing ambiguity
>> and risk for corporate legal departments, while protecting Boost
>> developers by disclaiming implicit guarantees.
> The underlying assumption being that making source available for
> download free of charge leads to implicit guarantees. But I'm not
> sure that this is the case. That's why I'm asking.
IIUC, there are no absolutes here (i.e. no law says "there is an
implicit guarantee"). Legally, it's just a question of what looks
like an attractive/vulnerable target. IIUC, the deal is that without
an explicit disclaimer, lawyers feel they have more leverage in
claiming that there was an implicit guarantee.
>>> I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old "in all
>>> copies" form is better than the new one; the legal system is
>>> sufficiently flexible to reliably recognize a "copy" (i.e. a
>>> password protected RAR archive of an mp3 encoded song).
>> I'm not sure about that. The problem is that the old version didn't
>> distinguish source code copies from object code copies.
> I think it does. Object code is not a copy of the source code.
>>> The new wording seems to allow self-extracting archives
>>> of "the Software" to not carry the license.
>> Good point. A simple "copies of the source" might work better than
>> the wording we have now.
> It's redundant. The text "all copies" in a source file implies "all copies
> of this source file". If you consider object code to be a copy of the
> source, changing "copies" to "copies of the source" doesn't help.
Sounds convincing to me, but IANAL. Let's see what the lawyers say.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk